Associations Between P300 Latency and Reaction Time on Event-Related Potentials in Children with Varying Levels of Fluid Intelligence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research utilized multiple testing methods (e.g., RSPM, P300 latency, reaction time) to analyze the relationship between children's fluid intelligence and neural efficiency. Detailed selection criteria, including the exclusion of participants with mental health or learning disorders, enhance the reliability of the results. The study employed robust statistical techniques (e.g., T-tests, Spearman correlation, and Benjamini-Hochberg correction) to ensure accurate data analysis. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were included, providing practical significance to the findings. Demonstrated a correlation between higher RSPM scores, shorter P300 latencies, and faster reaction times, supporting the neural efficiency hypothesis. Provided practical recommendations, such as using P300 as an indicator in educational interventions. The paper discussed not just the neural efficiency hypothesis but also its application in educational contexts, offering valuable multi-dimensional insights.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. It's always encouraging to receive positive feedback. We're thankful that you appreciated our use of multiple testing methods and our detailed participant selection. It's notable to know that these efforts resonated with you and that you found the statistical techniques and effect sizes helpful for understanding the practical significance of our findings. It's particularly rewarding to hear that you see the potential for our research in educational interventions.

Thank you again for your kind and constructive comments. We are inspired by your feedback and excited to keep pushing our research forward.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary: This study investigates the relationship between fluid intelligence, measured by Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), and electrophysiological measures (P300 latency and reaction time) in children. The authors hypothesized and found that children with higher fluid intelligence demonstrate shorter P300 latencies and faster reaction times, supporting the neural efficiency hypothesis.

Strengths:

• The study examines a novel combination of measures (P300 latency and reaction time) in relation to fluid intelligence. It explores an important topic with implications for understanding cognitive development and informing educational practices.
• It focuses on a specific and important developmental among children.
• The methods are generally rigorous, employing well-established procedures (RSPM and auditory oddball paradigm).
• The results are clearly presented and support the hypotheses.

Weaknesses:

• Limited Generalizability due to Male-Only Participants: The study's inclusion of only male participants significantly limits the generalizability of the findings. It remains unclear whether the observed relationships between P300 latency, reaction time, and fluid intelligence would also hold true for female children. This lack of gender diversity restricts the applicability of the results to the broader population of children.
• The justification for the sample size could be strengthened with a power analysis.
• Statistical analyses could be improved (e.g., considering repeated measures ANOVA).
• The discussion could benefit from a more in-depth comparison with previous literature and a more thorough exploration of the study's limitations.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• To further solidify the novelty of the research, we recommend expanding the literature review to provide a more detailed comparison with existing studies that have explored similar concepts but with different methodologies or populations.
• To ensure the study's findings are robust, please include a power analysis to justify the sample size.
• To provide a more comprehensive statistical analysis, consider the use of repeated measures ANOVA, which would account for the multiple P300 latency measurements across different electrode sites.
• To enrich the discussion, please include a more in-depth exploration of the study's limitations and a more detailed comparison of the results with previous research."

I recommend a major revision of the scientific article before acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been extremely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

We have carefully considered all your remarks and have made the corresponding revisions, which we believe have strengthened the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in red within the revised version of the manuscript for your convenience.

Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments.

Limited Generalizability due to Male-Only Participants: The study's inclusion of only male participants significantly limits the generalizability of the findings. It remains unclear whether the observed relationships between P300 latency, reaction time, and fluid intelligence would also hold true for female children. This lack of gender diversity restricts the applicability of the results to the broader population of children.

We have addressed your suggestions, and the corresponding revisions can be found in lines 480–506 of the updated manuscript

The justification for the sample size could be strengthened with a power analysis.

We have incorporated your recommended revisions, which are now evident in lines 291–295, 313–319, Table 2, as well as lines 326–331 and 394–398 of the updated manuscript

Statistical analyses could be improved (e.g., considering repeated measures ANOVA).

Thank you for your suggestion. After careful consideration, we decided to retain the use of independent samples t-tests in this study. This decision was primarily guided by our objective to examine differences in P300 latency between two distinct groups—children with high mental abilities and those with average mental abilities. Given the structure of our data, this approach was deemed appropriate, as it allowed for a straightforward comparison without necessitating adjustments for within-subject effects. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that if future analyses uncover significant variability or interactions within groups (e.g., gender differences), it may be necessary to consider more complex models, such as repeated measures ANOVA. We remain open to revisiting this methodological choice in future work should the data warrant it.

The discussion could benefit from a more in-depth comparison with previous literature and a more thorough exploration of the study's limitations.

We have taken your suggestion into account, and the corresponding revision is presented in lines 394–398 of the updated manuscript.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• To further solidify the novelty of the research, we recommend expanding the literature review to provide a more detailed comparison with existing studies that have explored similar concepts but with different methodologies or populations.

Your recommendation has been followed and is now evident in lines 508–550 of the updated manuscript.

• To enrich the discussion, please include a more in-depth exploration of the study's limitations and a more detailed comparison of the results with previous research.

Our recommendation has been incorporated into the Conclusions section and is presented in lines 508–550 of the updated manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have described tools and methodology for assessing the cognitive abilities of children in manuscript titled "Associations between P300 latency and reaction time on Event-2 Related Potentials in children with varying levels of fluid intel-3 ligence". The manuscript contains necessary information available for majority of required information. I feel manuscript is well written and explains results properly.

Author Response

Authors have described tools and methodology for assessing the cognitive abilities of children in manuscript titled "Associations between P300 latency and reaction time on Event-2 Related Potentials in children with varying levels of fluid intelligence". The manuscript contains necessary information available for majority of required information. I feel manuscript is well written and explains results properly.

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found the tools and methodology for assessing cognitive abilities clearly described, and that the manuscript contains the essential information necessary for evaluation. Your recognition of the clarity in our writing and explanation of the results is truly appreciated. Such feedback is highly motivating and reinforces our commitment to rigorous and transparent research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you, for incorporating the suggested changes.